Rifle Scopes New Schmidt & Bender PM2 6-36x56

[Glassaholic]

Yeah, I do not think me drawing attention to this will endear me to anyone at S&B or Swaro. It is what it is and I certainly commend S&B on being transparent with the specs.

ILya

If it's any consolation, it was woofer who reminded us of this in post 1117. You just helped answer the question why.

If anything it was Schmidt's own spec sheet that brought light to the situation, someone pointed this out long ago but that was when no scopes had made it to any soil so speculation about a typo was the best explanation. Now that we know the specs are real, the questions were asked why would Schmidt do this - you helped provide the answer and no blame can or should be brought upon you.

 

[TheOE800]

I wonder if Schmidt will "unlock" US scopes after 3 years.

That would be nice of them.

New for 2026: Schmidt PM II 6-36 High Performance II*

* retail price adjusted back to $5500 of course

 

[koshkin]

If it's any consolation, it was woofer who reminded us of this in post 1117. You just helped answer the question why.
View attachment 8192215

If anything it was Schmidt's own spec sheet that brought light to the situation, someone pointed this out long ago but that was when no scopes had made it to any soil so speculation about a typo was the best explanation. Now that we know the specs are real, the questions were asked why would Schmidt do this - you helped provide the answer and no blame can or should be brought upon you.
View attachment 8192213

I'll be honest with you: while I prefer a friendly relationship with different brands, I am not any less comfortable with an adversarial one. What they think of me is immaterial for my reviews.


ILya

 

[jbailey]

Guys,

Braving 100*F heat and no shade, @TheOE800 and I went the extra mile to get you guys the latest testing evaluation of his 6-36x56mm S&B.

CONCLUSION: We confirmed the numbers on the S&B website: 100m FOV is 6.2m (20'6") at 6x and 1.0m (3'5") on scopes for the US market.

METHODS: one end of 100m field is the scope on tripod; other end, is me with stakes. Paced off distance with tape measure from this stake and pounded in another stake at the lateral limit of the scope at the various magnifications. Tested at 6x, 25x and 36x. Additionally, we tested his 6-36x56mm Vortex Razor using the same process.

RESULTS:
S&B at 6x: 6.24 meters, or 20'6" (MATCHING SPEC ON S&B WEBSITE)
S&B at 25x: 1.55 meters or 5'1" (not listed on S&B website, but might be interesting if you want to compare it to your favorite 5-25x56mm)
S&B at 36x: 1.05 meters or 3'5" (MATCHING SPEC ON S&B WEBSITE)

Vortex at 36x: 1.17 meters or 3'10" (MATCHING SPEC ON VORTEX WEBSITE, after converting yds to meters)

DISCUSSION: Fit and finish on the S&B is amazing, per usual. DTII+ turrets are good to very good. The level to lock and turn on/off MTC is very clever and easy. I loved the font size of the numbers on turrets - very clear especially for older eyes. Dimensions on scope are nice and not giant. Optically, very good sight picture. Conditions were very bright, but also lots of mirage. The S&B ate thru that mirage nicely vs the Vortex, which really struggled to present a sight picture in that condition. Optically, the S&B was ahead of the Vortex, to my eyes.

The GR2ID reticle is OK, not great, to my eyes. At 6x it is hardly noticeable, which is good as it gives nice observation option. At 36x it jumps out and really dominates the scope. It was a nice compromise at 25x, very usable. I'm going to stick to tree reticles however.

Overall, I'm going to pass on this scope, due largely to the reticle. If you like grids, I think this scope is great and would not be terribly hung up on the FOV stats. Would love to see how the scope does in tough lighting conditions vs the other tier 1 scopes.

Thanks very much @TheOE800 - it was great to check both these outstanding scopes out!

 

[gnochi]

Obligatory IANAPL - but I do have 23 patents to my name at last count, and I’ve spent a lot of time talking to patent lawyers about nitty gritty things.

I’ll leave the optical side of things to ILya. Unfortunately (for us), I concur with @jbailey that it is a really strong patent with a really broad Claim 1, and even without having the “why” it’s possible to build an exemplary wide angle scope with the info in the dependent claims. Unfortunately, @Kiba, Claims 13/14 being struck or bypassed (which deal with the 35mm maximum diameter) don’t invalidate either independent claim. Thankfully it’ll expire in 3 years; Swaro isn’t going to be able to say “oh wait you can also use this rifle scope to treat this niche cancer.”

I’m wondering whether it’s optically possible to avoid having a separate “optical beam deflection system” by virtue of having a shorter eyepiece? The eyepiece lens is specifically called out as not being part of the OBDS. Pretty much every other workaround is a dependent claim that won’t work around the patent.

All that said, ima rant a bit.

I’m of the opinion that patent damages should be based on potential sales you can prove you didn’t make in dollars, capped at 3x the revenue the infringing company made on the infringing product, not anything strictly based on the number of units the infringing company sells. If you aren’t making anything, or they aren’t charging for it, damages are zero.

That said basically everything but blatant infringement or industrial espionage is a corner case for infringement under this scheme and timing of patent filing vs publication vs granting matters - as does first to market timing relative to the above. I’m also of the opinion that if someone makes a further development based on the original patent both companies should get a free license to both patents.

 

[Glassaholic]

Guys,

Braving 100*F heat and no shade, @TheOE800 and I went the extra mile to get you guys the latest testing evaluation of his 6-36x56mm S&B.

CONCLUSION: We confirmed the numbers on the S&B website: 100m FOV is 6.2m (20'6") at 6x and 1.0m (3'5") on scopes for the US market.

METHODS: one end of 100m field is the scope on tripod; other end, is me with stakes. Paced off distance with tape measure from this stake and pounded in another stack at the lateral limit of the scope at the various magnifications. Tested at 6x, 25x and 36x. Additionally, we tested his 6-36x56mm Vortex Razor using the same process.

RESULTS:
S&B at 6x: 6.24 meters, or 20'6" (MATCHING SPEC ON S&B WEBSITE)
S&B at 25x: 1.55 meters or 5'1" (no listed on S&B website, but might be interesting if you want to compare it to your favorite 5-25x56mm)
S&B at 36x: 1.05 meters or 3'5" (MATCHING SPEC ON S&B WEBSITE)

Vortex at 36x: 3'10" 1.17 meters or 3'10" (MATCHING SPEC ON VORTEX WEBSITE, after converting yds to meters)

DISCUSSION: Fit and finish on the S&B is amazing, per usual. DT+ turrets are good, to very good. The knob to lock and turn on/off MTC is very clever and easy. I loved the font size of the numbers on turrets - very clear especially for older eyes. Dimensions on scope are tight and not giant. Optically, very good sight picture. Conditions were very bright, but also lots of mirage. The S&B eat thru that mirage nicely vs the Vortex, which really struggled to present a sight picture in that condition. Optically, the S&B was ahead of the Vortex, to my eyes.

The GR2ID reticle is OK, not great, to my eyes. At 6x it is hardly noticeable, which is good as it gives nice observation option. At 36x it jumps out and really dominates the scope. It was a nice compromise at 25x, very usable. I'm going to stick to tree reticles however.

Overall, I'm going to pass on this scope, due largely to the reticle. If you like grids, I think this scope is great and would not be terribly hung up on the FOV stats. Would love to see how the scope does in tough lighting conditions vs the other tier 1 scopes.

Thanks very much @TheOE800 - it was great to check both these outstanding scopes out!

Thank you for going out and verifying in short order Good to know on the mirage situation, sounds like the eyebox, edge to edge sharpness (even with the full FOV version) and resolution/contrast of this scope is a force to be reckoned with among alpha class glass.

Your testing was in meters at 100m, for anyone stuck with imperial brain the conversion to feet at 100 yards for USA scope is:
18.6' @ 6x
3.15' @ 36x

In comparison, the European version of the scope converted to feet at 100y is:
21.9' @ 6x
3.75' @ 36x

 

[TheOE800]

It’s “the Tangent 735P we have at home” (worse turrets and likely comparable optical performance) for a grand less.

The Tangent 525P has much wider lower end FOV, but very similar FOV at 25x. Not sure how valuable the higher available magnification is, but there it is - you paid nothing for these thoughts so deal with it.

A big shout out to Mr. @jbailey for taking the time to meet me and to do both the science as well as the math today.

 

[Kiba]

Obligatory IANAPL - but I do have 23 patents to my name at last count, and I’ve spent a lot of time talking to patent lawyers about nitty gritty things.

I’ll leave the optical side of things to ILya. Unfortunately (for us), I concur with @jbailey that it is a really strong patent with a really broad Claim 1, and even without having the “why” it’s possible to build an exemplary wide angle scope with the info in the dependent claims. Unfortunately, @Kiba, Claims 13/14 being struck or bypassed (which deal with the 35mm maximum diameter) don’t invalidate either independent claim. Thankfully it’ll expire in 3 years; Swaro isn’t going to be able to say “oh wait you can also use this rifle scope to treat this niche cancer.”

I’m wondering whether it’s optically possible to avoid having a separate “optical beam deflection system” by virtue of having a shorter eyepiece? The eyepiece lens is specifically called out as not being part of the OBDS. Pretty much every other workaround is a dependent claim that won’t work around the patent.

All that said, ima rant a bit.

I’m of the opinion that patent damages should be based on potential sales you can prove you didn’t make in dollars, capped at 3x the revenue the infringing company made on the infringing product, not anything strictly based on the number of units the infringing company sells. If you aren’t making anything, or they aren’t charging for it, damages are zero.

That said basically everything but blatant infringement or industrial espionage is a corner case for infringement under this scheme and timing of patent filing vs publication vs granting matters - as does first to market timing relative to the above. I’m also of the opinion that if someone makes a further development based on the original patent both companies should get a free license to both patents.

100% agreed; the current patent system is ripe for abuse by patent trolls/hoarders (non-practicing entities) that aren't actively producing anything covered by the patents they may be holding, and even if they're a practicing entity the penalties for a another company who isn't doing outright blatant infringement but rather might have one small aspect of their product that is affected are often not proportional to the actual damages.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever see common sense reform like you suggested... my hunch is things are only going to get worse.

 

[wooferocau]

If it's any consolation, it was woofer who reminded us of this in post 1117. You just helped answer the question why.
View attachment 8192215

If anything it was Schmidt's own spec sheet that brought light to the situation, someone pointed this out long ago but that was when no scopes had made it to any soil so speculation about a typo was the best explanation. Now that we know the specs are real, the questions were asked why would Schmidt do this - you helped provide the answer and no blame can or should be brought upon you.
View attachment 8192213

AHHHH!! Where to hide...Where to hide......

 

[clonebuilder]

It’s a Tangent 735P with worse turrets and likely comparable optical performance for a grand less.

The 525P has much wider lower end FOV, but very similar FOV at 25x. Not sure how valuable the higher available magnification is, but there it is.

Someone should test the 735P now hopefully the same way to confirm FOV.

I am convinced i’m going to go bald. I hate those fucks who ruined Eurooptic’s TryBeforeYouBuy program.

 

[Glassaholic]

AHHHH!! Where to hide...Where to hide......

No need to hide, specs are in plain site on their website. I suppose one could argue why Eurooptic has the European specs listed on their website, this is misleading

 

[jbailey]

I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but I want to make sure the facts are correct.... SO:

I just looked at the US patent ('544) that @koshkin referenced in post #1232. This is the governing patent for the US market. It is exactly the same as the European patent (EU '411) from a cursory read. US '544 was filed in Jun 2010, or 4 years later than the European patent. This means, for US markets, Swaro IP will prevent entry of competing products until June 2030, or approximately 7 years, not the 3 years I suggested earlier. European market, regardless of the current legal status with Leica, will be free and clear in 3 years as the European patent '411 expires.

US '544 does reference the European patent '411. This patent 'stacking' is kind of slimy tactic, but it is common in practice. You might have a legal case that '544 is obvious in light of '411 and therefore '544 is invalid; this might win in a US court. Again however, $'s are involved and by time '411 is obvious, only 4 more years on '544.

I am sorry for this mis-reading - I didn't see US '544 until this afternoon, after the field test.

 

[Dogtown]

How dare you!?!

 

[GBMaryland]

No matter how you slice It, It is still an improvement over the 5–25X 5….

 

[GBMaryland]

How dare you!?!

You’re supposed to say….

Schweine!

 

[Dogtown]

SCHWEINHUNDE!

 

[GBMaryland]

Gott im Himmel! ‚Schweinehund,‘ es ist!

 

[Dogtown]

No matter how you slice It, It is still an improvement over the 5–25X 5….

"He's right, you know"

About ten years ago I figured the two Ultra Short models were the best of S&B, fully eclipsing the quality of the 5-25x. I'm of the belief that the 6-36x is the next round of top S&B optic. Yeah, that FOV discrepancy sucks, but is it a deal breaker? Depends on the individual I guess (hey now, I'm running a Vortex 6-36x on my long 6ARC toy).

 

[Dogtown]

Gott im Himmel! ‚Schweinehund,‘ es ist!

"Mein lieben!!!!...aahhhhh"

 

[GBMaryland]

"Mein lieben!!!!...aahhhhh"

Next, you’ll be singing, die Fahne Hoch….

 

[GBMaryland]

"He's right, you know"

About ten years ago I figured the two Ultra Short models were the best of S&B, fully eclipsing the quality of the 5-25x. I'm of the belief that the 6-36x is the next round of top S&B optic. Yeah, that FOV discrepancy sucks, but is it a deal breaker? Depends on the individual I guess (hey now, I'm running a Vortex 6-36x on my long 6ARC toy).

I sold an older 5-25 PM II and an ultra short 5-20 to purchase this scope. There was CA in the ultra short, and that really kind of annoyed me. The 3–20 does not suffer from that problem.

The 6–36X 56 is really a good piece of glass.

 

[clonebuilder]

I sold an older 5-25 PM II and an ultra short 5-20 to purchase this scope. There was CA in the ultra short, and that really kind of annoyed me. The 3–20 does not suffer from that problem.

The 6–36X 56 is really a good piece of glass.

the 3-20 regular or 3-20 ultra short?

 

[clonebuilder]

I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but I want to make sure the facts are correct.... SO:

I just looked at the US patent ('544) that @koshkin referenced in post #1232. This is the governing patent for the US market. It is exactly the same as the European patent (EU '411) from a cursory read. US '544 was filed in Jun 2010, or 4 years later than the European patent. This means, for US markets, Swaro IP will prevent entry of competing products until June 2030, or approximately 7 years, not the 3 years I suggested earlier. European market, regardless of the current legal status with Leica, will be free and clear in 3 years as the European patent '411 expires.

US '544 does reference the European patent '411. This patent 'stacking' is kind of slimy tactic, but it is common in practice. You might have a legal case that '544 is obvious in light of '411 and therefore '544 is invalid; this might win in a US court. Again however, $'s are involved and by time '411 is obvious, only 4 more years on '544.

I am sorry for this mis-reading - I didn't see US '544 until this afternoon, after the field test.

I am really starting to hate patent trolling and Swarovski.

 

[GBMaryland]

the 3-20 regular or 3-20 ultra short?

I would assume either. In my case the CA was in an ultra short 5-20, with the 3–20 US being very clean.

At first, I had wondered if the scope was some sort of fake… But it did go to Schmidt and they said it was fine.

 

[Kiba]

the 3-20 regular or 3-20 ultra short?

I'm not the person you originally asked, but having used both I find the full length 3-20 to have much better image quality and depth of field forgiveness than the ultrashort 3-20. What's also funny is many versions of the 3-20 ultrashort are heavier than the full length 3-20. Other than being available with more turret choices the ultrashort 3-20 really doesn't offer any advantages over the full length 3-20 IMO unless you're using it with a clip on.

I have 3 of the 3-20 full lengths and really like them, although I'm considering replacing them with 3x Zeiss 4-25 S3s to pick up more magnification up top without giving up too much FOV at the lower end. Can't bring myself to do it though because every time I look through a 3-20 I remembered why I bought them; the image is really, really good and the FOV is amazing.

 

[TheOE800]

and the FOV is amazing.

don’t tease

 

[GBMaryland]

I picked up one of the Zeiss scopes when they first came out… And I was pretty impressed with the glass. In fact, the glass is really great. I was less impressed with the turrets. Lol honestly there’s really nothing wrong with that scope in any capacity.

 

[Kiba]

don’t tease

Lol, sorry.

I'm not sure why the 3-20 wasn't crippled for the US being it was made after the Swarovski patent was granted, has a 6.7x erector ratio, and has a wide FOV (13m @ 100m @ 3x, 2.1m @ 100m 20x, so about 24.1 degrees apparent FOV, which exceeds the 22 degrees in the patent.)

I was hoping the new 6-36 was going to provide that same "widescreen" image of the 3-20 but obviously with more available magnification, but that pesky patent has crushed my dreams as a US customer... because as it sits now the 6-36 US model only has a negligible FOV advantage over my current S&B 5-25s.

3-20: 24.1 degrees afov
5-25: 21.48 degrees
6-36 US spec: 21.66 degrees
6-36 non-US spec: 25.8 degrees

In the original non-USA design specs, at the same magnification levels the 6-36 would have an even larger FOV than the 3-20-- impressive, and a big part of the reason why I was really looking forward to trying one. I'm sure the glass in the 6-36 is still great, and probably better than my 5-25s, but since the US scopes no longer have the large FOV advantage I'm nowhere near as motivated to rush out and buy one.

At this point I'm going to run with my 12 year old 5-25s for a while longer.

 

[GBMaryland]

OK, you dirty commies, you’ve made me buy a TT 7-35x56 just to compare!

I hope you’re happy @Glassaholic @TheOE800!

Of course… The question now is:

Will it be Deutschland, Deutschland über alles…

…or Oh, Canada?





Disclaimer: Das Lied der Deutschen is the German national anthem, and the stanza that makes up Deutschland Deutschland über alles is never sung. (you will greatly offend a German if you sing that for imply that that’s the national anthem….)

 

[TheOE800]

You’re welcome.

At this point I'm going to run with my 12 year old 5-25s for a while longer.

Unfortunately for Schmidt, that seems to be the consensus amongst the folks I know except for @GBMaryland. I didn’t need this scope in my inventory and could have lived without it, but I’ll make do as there isn’t really much I can do aside from attempt a return and buy two more Razors?

 

[wooferocau]

You’re welcome.


but I’ll make do as there isn’t really much I can do aside from attempt a return and buy two more Razors?

Move to the land "Downunder"

 

[Glassaholic]

OK, you dirty commies, you’ve made me but a TT 7-35x56 just to compare!

Hey now, I never told anyone to do that with their TT... Oh wait, I think you misspelled that and meant to say "buy", my bad

I hope you’re happy @Glassaholic @TheOE800!

Happy? I wouldn't say I'm happy, but you might be Honestly what do you hope to gain from the 7-35 that you don't already have with the Schmidt 6-36? AFOV seems to be about the same between the TT and the neutered Schmidt?

Of course… The question now is:

Will it be Deutschland, Deutschland über alles…

…or Oh, Canada?

Oh boy, now that's a dilemma, a few years ago I would have said Germany is more Left but Canada took advantage of 2020 to go radical Left and may even be worse right now.

---

From the Babylon Bee
OTTAWA — According to reports, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lit up a Cuban cigar to honor his dad on Father's Day.

"Yeah, this has been a tradition of mine ever since my dear old Dad Fide — er, I mean, Pierre, started sending me boxes of these babies every year," said Trudeau while puffing on a Cohiba. "Ahhhh... fresh from the homeland."

Sources close to the Prime Minister said he often takes a moment to smoke a Cuban cigar to help decompress after a long day of destroying civil liberties, freezing bank accounts of political enemies, and dressing like a dark-skinned Indian sultan. "The Prime Minister took the time to honor his father today. His father is Pierre and definitely not Fidel the Communist Cuban dictator, may he rest in eternal peace," said a spokesperson for Trudeau.

At publishing time, Trudeau had finished off his Father's Day festivities with a smooth Cuban mojito in honor of his dad, whose name is Pierre and not Fidel.

 

[Huskydriver]

You’re welcome.


Unfortunately for Schmidt, that seems to be the consensus amongst the folks I know except for @GBMaryland. I didn’t need this scope in my inventory and could have lived without it, but I’ll make do as there isn’t really much I can do aside from attempt a return and buy two more Razors?

I got a thousand bucks on it

 

[Glassaholic]

Move to the land "Downunder"

Do you have a paddock I can homestead on? I'll even help take care of the cows, or wallabies or whatever you're raising down there

 

[Huskydriver]

OK, you dirty commies, you’ve made me but a TT 7-35x56 just to compare!

I hope you’re happy @Glassaholic @TheOE800!

Of course… The question now is:

Will it be Deutschland, Deutschland über alles…

…or Oh, Canada?





Disclaimer: Das Lied der Deutschen is the German national anthem, and the stanza that makes up Deutschland Deutschland über alles is never sung. (you will greatly offend a German, if you sing that for imply that that’s the national anthem….)

Americans? Worried about offending Germans? Surely you jest sir

 

[Kiba]

You’re welcome.


Unfortunately for Schmidt, that seems to be the consensus amongst the folks I know except for @GBMaryland. I didn’t need this scope in my inventory and could have lived without it, but I’ll make do as there isn’t really much I can do aside from attempt a return and buy two more Razors?

Funny, that's exactly what I did. I bought 2 razor g3's during Liberty Optics sale rather than 1 S&B 6-36. I'll give the razors a try while I try to get a hold of a European market 6-36.

Honestly what do you hope to gain from the 7-35 that you don't already have with the Schmidt 6-36? AFOV seems to be about the same between the TT and the neutered Schmidt?

Exactly. Afov of the TT 7-35 is 21.66 degrees, same as the US market S&B 6-36, and is probably being artificially restricted for the same reason.

Of course there will be glass/turret/reticle differences, but unfortunately they both are being limited to <22 degrees AFOV.

I wonder if the TT 7-35s sold in other markets will have a wider FOV, but they're not advertising that...

 

[Glassaholic]

Funny, that's exactly what I did. I bought 2 razor g3's during Liberty Optics sale rather than 1 S&B 6-36. I'll give the razors a try while I try to get a hold of a European market 6-36.

Bet you're breathing a big sigh of relief right now since your main interest with the Schmidt was the FOV. Meanwhile, those Razor's are pretty impressive for the price (especially the LO price).

Exactly. Afov of the TT 7-35 is 21.66 degrees, same as the US market S&B 6-36, and is probably being artificially restricted for the same reason.

What formula/calculation are you using to get AFOV values? I think that would be a good metric for me to include in future reviews...

Of course there will be glass/turret/reticle differences, but unfortunately they both are being limited to <22 degrees AFOV.

I wonder if the TT 7-35s sold in other markets will have a wider FOV, but they're not advertising that...

Not sure if Tangent is affected by this patent as they are made in Canada. March has some of the widest FOV's optics and don't seem to have an issue with US market. I think it's only European manufactured scopes that are affected. Even your Gen3 Razor's have >22° FOV but they are manufactured in Japan and assembled here so guessing they slip by the patent. Any of the patent experts care to elaborate?

 

[Kiba]

What formula/calculation are you using to get AFOV values? I think that would be a good metric for me to include in future reviews...

Arctan(FOV at target / distance to target) * magnification

So for a razor G3 @ 36x you would have arctan(1.1666 / 100) * 36, which is 24.06 degrees.

I've read on some photography sites this may be a simplified method and that manufacturers take distortion into their AFOV calculations per an industry standard which results in slightly different numbers, but the above formula gets pretty close and clearly shows several scope manufacturers are holding afov specs right under that 22 degree number in the Swarovski patent.

 

[GBMaryland]

The glass in the vortex is pretty great. The big difference is how sensitive the eye boxes to you moving your head left or right with the parallax properly adjusted.

That’s what I noticed as the big difference between the two scopes.

With the Schmidt you dial in your parallax, and it is very forgiving.

The Vortx is an amazing deal for the price. However, that one quality above is driving me a little crazy.

 

[Glassaholic]

Arctan(FOV at target / distance to target) * magnification

So for a razor G3 @ 36x you would have arctan(1.1666 / 100) * 36, which is 24.06 degrees.

I've read on some photography sites this may be a simplified method and that manufacturers take distortion into their AFOV calculations per an industry standard which results in slightly different numbers, but the above formula gets pretty close and clearly shows several scope manufacturers are holding afov specs right under that 22 degree number in the Swarovski patent.

Arctan? Wasn't that a Klingon warrior? Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of Kahles who founded the Klingon empire Either way I had no clue what an arctan was so I had to look it up and see that it is a trig function, sadly I did not get the math genes from my father who was an aeronautical engineer for Lockheed Skunkworks (and would have known exactly what that was). So can you edumacate Bubba here on how to get the arctan cause I tried plugging in some numbers based on the above and wasn't even close

 

[Glassaholic]

The glass in the vortex is pretty great. The big difference is how sensitive the eye boxes to you moving your head left or right with the parallax properly adjusted.

I'm going to have to pay more attention to that next time I'm out, parallax has been pretty forgiving on mine. Has this occurred or been more finicky at any particular distance? I did long distance testing when I did my alpha scope review with the G3 but since then it has sat on my 22LR trainer so maybe I need to stretch it out more to observe this.

 

[Kiba]

Arctan? Wasn't that a Klingon warrior? Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of Kahles who founded the Klingon empire Either way I had no clue what an arctan was so I had to look it up and see that it is a trig function, sadly I did not get the math genes from my father who was an aeronautical engineer for Lockheed Skunkworks (and would have known exactly what that was). So can you edumacate Bubba here on how to get the arctan cause I tried plugging in some numbers based on the above and wasn't even close

Arctan is just inverse tangent, often shown as tan-¹ on a calculator. It's just backing into the field of view in degrees from the 2 legs of the triangle defined by (observed field of view at target / distance to target.)

Also, March appears to use the exact same formula to come up with AFOV. They advertise a 25 degree wide angle eyepiece on their 4.5-28, and list a 1.56m FOV @ 100m in the specs, and if you plug those numbers into the formula I posted you get 25.02 degrees.

 

[GBMaryland]

so, related to the patent… are we assuming that the European model they’re incorporating the patent and paying for it? Whereas in the US they’re not paying for it?

 

[Kiba]

so, related to the patent… are we assuming that the European model they’re incorporating the patent and paying for it? Whereas in the US they’re not paying for it?

No, Leica challenged the patent in Europe and got it invalidated, so scopes sold in Europe are free of having to abide by the now invalidated patent.

Unfortunately Swarovski's US patent is still active and won't expire until 2030, so unless someone challenges it and gets it invalidated or they pay licensing fees we're stuck with the current reduced FOV.

S&B might want to do some cost projections and estimate the cost of lost sales at the current throttled spec vs. more sales of the full FOV scope but having to pay a licensing fee. We may just be a very vocal minority that wants the full FOV version and might not change their sales projections enough to justify paying the licensing fee.

 

[TheOE800]

Do you have a paddock I can homestead on? I'll even help take care of the cows, or wallabies or whatever you're raising down there

Don’t forget to throw some shrimp on the barbie

 

[wooferocau]

whatever you're raising down there

BEHOLD.......2nd only in aggrresion to the infamous "Drop Bear"

 

[Kiba]

BEHOLD.......2nd only in aggrresion to the infamous "Drop Bear"

I had no idea you were a cube turd rancher.

Explains a lot, actually.

 

[Glassaholic]

BEHOLD.......2nd only in aggrresion to the infamous "Drop Bear"

Wombats, that's awesome, I'd love to help to care of those guys. Didn't Luke Skywalker use to shoot Wombats from his speeder on Tatooine?

But not these guys, nasty little buggers

 

[clonebuilder]

The glass in the vortex is pretty great. The big difference is how sensitive the eye boxes to you moving your head left or right with the parallax properly adjusted.

That’s what I noticed as the big difference between the two scopes.

With the Schmidt you dial in your parallax, and it is very forgiving.

The Vortx is an amazing deal for the price. However, that one quality above is driving me a little crazy.

What range does the schmidt go parallax free? I know TT525Ps were like 220 yards or somethin

 

[Glassaholic]

We may just be a very vocal minority that wants the full FOV version and might not change their sales projections enough to justify paying the licensing fee.

I think this is more likely the situation. Schmidt can probably care less about the ramblings of a few of us in a tiny thread on the Hide. Most shooters don't know FOV if it hit 'em across their face, they just look at a magnification number and call it a day - "my ATACR 5-25 is better than your Razor Gen3 6-36 cause it can go down to 5x" not realizing that the 6-36 actually has greater FOV than the ATACR does...